Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)
justice john paul stevens this afternoon delivering a speech regarding the second amendment and gun laws. the brady center to prevent gun violence is hosting the event today. during his time on the court, justice stevens authored dissents in the 2006 and 2008 decisions on the second amendment. he served from 1975 to 2010. that makes him the third longest-serving supreme court justice. we expect this to start any moment. this is live coverage on c-span c-span3. c-span2. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> we to want to let everybody know there was a mass shooting at -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] a gunman acting -- >> that's when i realized that this is not part -- gunmen are shooting everywhere. >> we go out, and the first thing we see is a 13, 14-year-old with bullets in her leg and her stomach and probably her -- [inaudible conversations] ♪ >> we do want to let everybody know at home there's been a mass shooting at a movie theater just outside denver, colorado, in aurora. a gunman acting alone opening fire -- >> that's when i rea
chris stevens cited as the highlight of his time in the country. achieving genuine democracy and broad-based growth will be a long and difficult process. we know that from our own history. more than 235 years after our own revolution, we are still working toward that more perfect union. so one should expect setbacks along the way, times when some will surely ask if it was all worth it. but going back to the way things were in december 2010 isn't just undesirable, it is impossible. so this is the context in which we have to view recent events and shape our approach going forward. and let me explain where that leads us. now, since this is a conference on the maghreb, that's where i'll focus. because, after all, that's where the arab revolution started and where an international coalition helped stop a dictator from slaughtering his people and where just last month we saw such disturbing violence. but let's look at what's actually happening on the ground. especially in light of recent events. we have to, as always, be clear-eyed about the threat of violent extremism. a year of democratic
, president ford nominated john paul stevens to replace him. in his confirmation hearings, he was not asked a single question about abortion because it was not part of the political dialogue in the way that it later or became. um, the big issue, the big change began in 1980, of course, with the election of ronald reagan because ronald reagan brought with him to washington, um, a very underrated figure in recent american history, someone who i don't think gets his due as an important person, and that's edwin meese. because edwin meese at first as an adviser and then as attorney general said, look, there has been a liberal ayen da at the supreme court -- agenda at the supreme court, there needs to be a conservative agenda at the supreme court. what was that agenda? expand executive power, end racial preferences intended to assist african-americans, speed up execution, welcome religion into the public sphere and, above all, um, reverse roe v. wade and allow states once again to ban abortion. a big part of the reagan revolution, um, was the arrival in washington of a group of young and committe
stevens was invited to stand for reelection, was convicted, the justice department acknowledged its own errors. not just because of this, but i do want to remind people in the context of this discussion, that there are thousands of people in the justice department and hundreds of prosecutors who do their jobs very well and very girly day in and day out. many things of this nature, those are not the things that we care about. we hear about things when they go wrong. i do think it would be an error to assume that the humans case represents the norm of practice by the justice department. nonetheless, the consequences were serious and it could recur, and love is here to talk to us about what did happen and what might be done to prevent recurrence. >> i think that is great. he took the words out of my mouth. i appreciate what he said that the honor they bring to your job and the good judgment to you and your prosecutors show. i know that david and george comported themselves as well. i'm the one person on this panel that has never been prosecuted prosecutor on this panel. i have been a defen
. and later retired supreme court justice john paul stevens speaks to a conference about gun laws, gun violence and his dissents in the court's cases involving the second amendment. >> c-span brings a special perspective into what's happening in washington, particularly your coverage of the house and the senate. so if something is going on in the house and the senate -- andw something will go on in the next five years, maybe not this7 year -- c-span covers this authoritatively, very, very well, and it's one of the major news sources or news happenings in washington. we're all struggling with what's going to happen with health care. i mean, c-span was the authoritative voice covering what happened with health care. we're worried about the financial system. c-span, again, is the authoritative voice in terms of what the congress is doing or won't do in terms of the financial system. >> ken gun they are watches c-span on comcast. c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> now, a panel discusses the potential eff
, but circling around and sniffing. the other part of the opinion, and justice stevens wrote the opinion, saying you don't have any right to have illegal drugs, and all a well-trained dog does is sniff out illegal drugs so there's no privacy vision at all. that instruct me at the time, and since then, this seems too simple. i remember the history of the fourth amendment was the, you know, the british were trying to extract taxes from the american colonies. they passed a series of laws that said we're going to put taxes on molasses and sugar and tea, and them because the americans didn't want to pay the taxes, they'd use british troops to break into warehouses, break into trunks, and search, and that's what led to the fourth amendment, the principle of unreasonable searches. i don't think the american colonists would have been satisfied if the british said, we have dogs, they sniff out -- they can sniff molasses and tea. i don't think the american colonists would have said, fine, break into our warehouses. it's an interesting question about what the fourth amendment really means. i think one of t
activities we have seen recently culminated in the kind of environment like the murder of christopher stevens in benghazi. how do we begin thinking now about strategy and processes for the provision and security in the reform of institutions and for the transformation of a broader culture in syria that has elevated security and the security apparatus to position that supersedes the democratic rule of law, formal institutions and subordinate them to the preferences of those who run the security apparatus. how do we get syria out of that kind of a context and into one in which the security sector functions consistent with the rule of law. these were the challenges that we have to deal with in the future. >> thank you very much, steve. good morning, ladies and gentlemen. not only is this a work in progress as more areas are being liberated and documented, we have a list of suggestion and so we laid out some principles in the reform. the most important of which, i think, is the civilian authority over the army. an army that would be of security services to be able to help themselves politically
a question here? way, way in the back, is there a microphone in that last row there? >> steven call, university of maryland. is it important for the united states to abide by international law and liberal international order and is there a way the united states could use military force against iran's nuclear program without u.n. approval and be in compliance with international law? >> who wants to take that? want to take it. >> i will take it but don't want to be droning on and on. >> then speak briefly. >> i will speak briefly. the united states, first of all, you know you can go through a lot of presidents going back to including bill clinton obviously who took military action in kosovo in that case without a u.n. security council mandate and, barack obama ran and says repeatedly that he does not consider the united states bound by to pursue its interests bound by u.n. security council resolutions. merge has i would say am by lept attitude toward international law. we are in some respects the greatest spokesman sometimes for international law but throughout our history and through
insurrections, and recently when islamists attacked u.s. embassies in cairo and ambassador stevens got killed, the russians said, see, we told you this would happen if you backed the revolutions. and finally, number eight, with street demonstrations in moscow of december 2011 and in the midst of russia's presidential campaign, putin asserted that he saw, quote: the same forces at work in russia as in syria and that the u.s. was trying to do an orange revolution in russia. okay. russia then, in summing up, has vetoed three security council resolutions including watered-down ones criticizing syria, it continues to ship arms to syria saying there is no u.n. security council resolution against arms shipments, however, it's urging them to open up a dialogue with the assad regime and has supported the ill-fated kofi a man mission -- kofi annan mission. what are the costs of this policy? a, alienating an arc of states moscow's been wooing since 2007, especially saudi arabia and qatar. two, alienating key islamic leaders who called for the boycotting of products of russia and several days ago said, a
stevens and running around campaign and then have a conversation with mike was running the romney transition team is two different world. obama is omar khadr get and that of many private conversations with his people but i also believe he's not that dissimilar. it's a very different conversation than the one you have with jack lew or whoever is fully thinking through what obama would actually do in november, december of this year, and then the first six months of next year. so i don't think it's impossible. i think maybe it's just the way we're going to have to conduct ourselves, pivot extremely quickly after election day and get about the business of governing. i don't buy the argument that the partisanship is so bad that you can get democratic votes for republican budget or vice versa. i think there'll be a certain momentum to do with these programs where the reelected the president for elect a new president. so that will be an unusual situation, when we haven't had a long time, that degree of certainty and mandate i think. but in any case, i think, but it's not going to become
, steven. and as to why he is uniquely protect education, i think it reflects his commitment to the issue. i think he would agree with jon to some extent that federal mining can be used -- federal money can be used to drive reform so charges he the federal government driving reform. in fact, the federal funding is the levers of the federal government has to try and drive reform at the state and local level. so we need to keep spending in order to accomplish that role. >> easy suggesting, because he suggested for the title ii might not be effective. but easy suggesting as he would not cut education funding that is going to hold harmless every program? >> certainly not every program. in fact, his white paper that we put forward, it mentioned making changes to the higher education funding system, as well as changes in k-12. one of those changes being taken a title ii dollars and actually consolidating them into a block grant to the states to drive innovation and human capital. and development. so certainly it's not a program by program commitment. it's a statement that education will be a pr
, democrat kirsten and steven later here on c-span2. >> what is the dinner, and how did it come about? >> so the al smith dinner is the most famous that presidential candidates show up every four years, and they show up, democrats and republicans -- i mean, it's really a memorial dinner for smith, and i think it's the thing that if anyone heard al smith's name at this point in time, that that's where you heard about al smith unless you hang around these hallowed halls. it's his lasting legacy, the place where the name gets out. it's held every year, not just every four years. prominent figures come in, it's a memorial dinner, a catholic charity dinner. people get together to assess the legacy of al smith and presidential candidates always especially to crack jokes about each other. >> in fact, they show up together most times, show up both the democrat and republican nominees show up together. we want to show you some of the past al smith's dinners. >> might i ask if senior clark comes up here because either the president of the united states or i am without a seat. [laughter] i have no inte
before the election is over, we will. who has any questions? yes, sir? >> hi, i'm tom stevens, executive director of the law two form alliance of new york. we worked with your successor's office to turn the tide of tort reform in the state. my question to you is when you were mayor, what tort reforms specifically did you advocate for to really help the city relief the burden of lawsuits and litigation? >> well, the most important thing for the city to have a limit on punitive damages, a limit on pain and suffering, a connection to actual economic loss, maybe a limit of 250 250,000-500,000. the bill we supported in the state legislature that never passed because of the democratic majorities in the state legislature, and i don't want to blame it on the majorities because the trial lawyers owned four or five republicans as well. what we wanted was a limit on pain and suffering, punitive damages of about $250,000, maybe would have negotiated to $500,000, and then the rest of it connected to economic loss, and maybe a two or three times multiple of economic loss. that would have -- that would
justice stevens have occurred at that point. the question is, is very compelling enough agreement to overcome that rate? said that is the one question on the second question is how much should be disclosed? >> i think that's a great place to go. just a reminder that bradley smith is the cofounder of the center for competitive politics and a ban on deregulation of public money is executive or for responsibility. so i'm going to turn back to you. i want to get to the disclosure question, but i also want to approach the question of whether there is a fundamental mismatch between one person, one vote and money is free speech. >> i wouldn't agree that money equals speech. i think they are separate and distinct. i think there's a lot of questions about disclosure issues and all people he used to be in favor of disclosure in fact are no longer in favor of disclosure. before citizens united to people like senator mitch mcconnell, the senate majority leader has said really we should be able to contribute what we want, but we should disclose it all. everybody's anti-disclosure is part of th
it happened. first of all can ambassador stevens wrote to secretary of state, said i am concerned about our safety. i am concerned because i know it's you and libya. those were ignored. but the biggest problem is not just what happened, but why it happened. people like dr. ruiz who are sympathizers for the greatness of america, they believe -- they believe that actually if we apologize for opponents come up for nice to them then so be nice to us and returned. because of this, our country is less safe, much more dangerous place today than four years ago. >> moderator: thank you, congresswoman. dr. ruiz. ruiz: this is clear evidence that congress is broken. now over and over, she will repeat this incident in the city of plymouth and it's a shame. it is a shame -- it is a shame -- it is a shame that you are trying to make me seem anti-american. bono mack: six years, six years, six years. ruiz: we were to protect her ability to give voice to a native american heritage, to give them a voice in our american stories, congresswoman. >> moderator: thank you, dr. ruiz. >> two years ago you told "the
stevens and three other americans but as the state department has weathered the republican-led criticism of the warning signs before the september 11th attack, clinton has been invisible. clinton will not appear the oversight hearing on the libya attack where they've said they will question the state department security preparations and the administration's account of the attack. the state department plans to the interest in their career with other officials. ahead of the hearing they provided new details about the attack or asserting that there had been no way to predict or prevent the same assault. and as we read in the "the washington times" earlier, the report that the state department according to them took away any claims that this attack was due to the protest about that video to read that is the front page of the "the washington times" this morning. they also in case you are interested include a brief chronology of the aftermath of the attack on the u.s. consulate in libya if you are interested in that in the "the washington times". ahead of the hearing in a column the purpose of
that it is all that a realistic in terms of reality. >> i want to bring in steven of the question of, first of all, why does this inaction? and also, your own take on how likely are not you see any of these areas right now. >> i have used on a lightly have a lot of the scenarios. i agree with what's about -- much of what was said. the -- to go back and answer your first question, i think obviously they're could be disagreements about that and the precise percentages that representative airport, but i do think the underlying point that there is a costs, and economic costs, and measurable economic cost to inaction is undeniable, particularly after reading the entire report. and so i would hate to see -- get into a quarrel about the methodology to what is that the group lose the audience. economists might enjoy that, with the rest of us would find ourselves very lost. but i do think it is an important addition to the public debate we're having that in addition to the obvious fact that a war, u.s. military action or israeli military action would have it shipped to the fact confessors it with th
this is not libyan, this is not islam. we respect the ambassador stevens and i worked with him when he was a u.s. envoy he was respected and loved and libya with the question remains why the violence. modeling course in libya but we saw in yemen and tunisia and i keep emphasizing the destabilized and traumatized nations. i think the element of how to work with the groups who are trying to come back and address the issues and understanding that right now on the ground this is one of the biggest issue is the civil society is trying to come together with. in most cases, there's an assumption to receive the funding were to be accepted by the western nations you have to distance yourself from religion. i can't that the exception has been in libya you have seen some groups step out, and in particular there is the network that of some of the most respected in libya that have been very active at least in terms of issuing statements and this isn't just recently even after the revolution in 2011. the network issued a statement to promote international women's rights. so here is a country in the midst of
on september 11th. we last a great friend, ambassador chris stevens. he's not only friend, he's a tennis partner, and he is a champion, and he's part of the libya revolution. we lost him in a very criminal attack against the american consulate in benghazi. i want to extend my condolence or regret, sorry for his family and for the american people. it is sad that he is not around with us to see the democratic process taking place in libya. well, we have, with support of the united states, of nato, of arab countries to defeat the gadhafi regime which was libya for 42 years. but the challenges are still great in front of us. we have security issue. unfortunately, the government is still not under control of the libyan territories. we have very long borders. we have illegal immigrants. we have some terrorists, and is we have some groups that are having weapons in their hands. how can we control them? how can we bring them under the umbrella of the government? this need two things. one is support of our friend, the support during the war. and the second thing that we have to take these people
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)